Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Religion Forum Research Project: God is the Rock
Various | January 25, 2007 | Alamo-Girl

Posted on 01/25/2007 10:49:26 AM PST by Alamo-Girl

The premise to uphold or debunk: (a) That the name of “Rock” was specially announced as a name for God in the Torah (Deut 32:1-4) and that (b) the name has been erased and/or lost in certain translations and thus (c) has had an effect on how Christians understand certain passages in Scripture.

Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. [He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he. – Deu 32:1-4

We were hashing these things out on another thread here on the Religion Forum. But the thread is huge and has many sidebars and interest changed to more pressing matters – plus we were not on the “radar” of the forum as a whole. It is my hope that other posters here will have information and insight – whether Biblical archeology or theology or language – that will shed some additional light on the subject.

Translations:

English from Hebrew (Masoretic)

[He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.

tsuwr po`al tamiym derek mishpat 'el 'emuwnah `evel tsaddiyq yashar

English from the Greek (Septuagint)

As for God, His works are true, and all His ways are justice. God is faithful and there is no unrighteousness in Him; just and holy is the Lord.

English from Latin (Vulgate)

The works of God are perfect, and all his ways are judgments: God is faithful and without any iniquity, he is just and right.

Dei perfecta sunt opera et omnes viae eius iudicia Deus fidelis et absque ulla iniquitate iustus et rectus

Background on the Hebrew:

Tzur is Hebrew for "rock". It is also used here:

For who [is] God, save the LORD? and who [is] a rock, save our God? – 2 Sam 22:32

Tzur alone and with other word phrases is among the Biblical names or titles of God.

Biblical and Talmudic Names for God

Another common title of YHWH is "the Rock" (Deuteronomy 32:4,18, 1, 7; I Samuel 2:2; II Samuel 22:32; Isaiah 44:8; Psalm 18:32), thus comparing Him to a high crag on which one finds refuge and safety.

That God is the Rock has not been lost in Judaism, e.g. “Rock of Ages” (Ma’oz Tzur) is the favorite Hanukkah Song.

Nor has it been lost among Christians who have long used the King James Translation which was faithful to interpret literally the Hebrew word tzur to mean Rock instead of God or Mighty One as it is translated in the Septuagint.

Ironically, the Christian hymn Rock of Ages is among their favorites.

The name for God is used in several places in Deuteronomy 32 and 2 Samuel 22 but also appears throughout the Psalms and in Isaiah.

In Isaiah 30:29 and Habbukak 1:12 it is translated in the King James Version to mean Mighty One like in the Septuagint - but everywhere else that I have found it is “Rock”.

The Vulgate omits the name altogether in Deuteronomy 32:4

Why is it important?

From the Jewish perspective

Of all the possible errors a translator could make, missing one of the names or titles of God has to be “right up there.” Rock is one of the common names for God but nevertheless important to Judaism.

The Name of God (Jewish Virtual Library)

Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").

Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.

The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God.

It is worth noting that this prohibition against erasing or defacing Names of God applies only to Names that are written in some kind of permanent form, and recent rabbinical decisions have held that writing on a computer is not a permanent form, thus it is not a violation to type God's Name into a computer and then backspace over it or cut and paste it, or copy and delete files with God's Name in them. However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one or in BBS messages: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it.

Normally, we avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing "G-d" instead of "God." In addition, the number 15, which would ordinarily be written in Hebrew as Yod-Heh (10-5), is normally written as Tet-Vav (9-6), because Yod-Heh is a Name. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about using letters as numerals.

The Torah is unlike any other manuscript, God breathed and supreme as Christ underscored here:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. – Matt 5:18

Jewish tradition holds that the Torah existed before the world, that every letter of it is a living creature and that altogether it, too, is a name of God. It is their – and by their hand to the world – greatest gift (since they don't receive Christ.) It is also their mission.

Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. - John 4:22

To me, not translating tzur literally Rock in the Septuagint - is in fact "erasing" a name of God. Moreover, it is not in the Vulgate at all in Deu 32:4.

From the Christian perspective:

The name of God is crucial to all Christians. It is our first plea in the Lord’s prayer:

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name….

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:11-12

I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. – John 5:43

I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. – John 17:6

And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. – John 17:11-13

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. – Philippians 2:9-11

His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. – Revelation 19:12-13

Surely the name “God is the Rock” will continue to be important in eternity. The Deuteronomy passage is in the “Song of Moses” which will be sung in heaven:

And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for [thou] only [art] holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. – Rev 15:2-4

And Christ used the term Rock in two very important passages. If one misunderstands the Rock to mean something common or someone other than God, then it can lead to error.

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. – Matt 7:24-25

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. – Matt 16:17-18

Peter and Paul were both Jews – they did not miss the point that God is the Rock as we can see here.

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. – 1 Cor 10:1-4

Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. – 1 Peter 2:7-8

What is lost when “God is the Rock” is lost?

To me, the most far reaching loss is in seeing Peter as the Rock in Matt 16:17-18 instead of God. Not that he isn’t “a“ rock but – at the very most, accepting that God is the Rock - his position in Christianity could be no more than Abraham’s in Judaism.

Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock [whence] ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit [whence] ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah [that] bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him. – Isaiah 51:1-2

IOW, the foundation of Christianity is God, the Rock. Both the reference to Abraham and to Peter were drawn on top of that name not in lieu of it.

Moreover, I assert that receiving the knowledge that “God is the Rock” can improve our understanding the Old Testament and increase our joy.

As an example, consider the following passage understanding that God is the Rock, that Jesus was smitten, that the Living Water is the Spirit (John 4, 7:38):

Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?– Exodus 17:6-7

Or perhaps this one:

And the LORD said, Behold, [there is] a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. – Exodus 33:21-23

Here’s where the debate stands at this time:

Defense of the Vulgate/Septuagint:

The rebuttal so far is that the Septuagint chronologically precedes the Masoretic text, that the original Hebrew from which the Septuagint was translated is no longer available (as far as we know to this date.)

I have not yet received a defense for why the Vulgate omits the term altogether.

Rebuttal to the defense

As to antiquity, Deuteronomy is the second most copied book at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) – 33 copies, second only to Psalms. Some are copied in fragments like literature, poems or hymns. However, generally speaking, carbon dating of manuscripts at Qumran establish true antiquity of copies at several centuries B.C.

The Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies does not mention any change to the Masoretic Text needed with reference to Deuteronomy 32:1-4. However, although we do have a non-MT Hebrew version of Deutoronomy 32 from cave 4, 4QDt(q) – it only contains lines 37-43. So we cannot read anything into an omission here in comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Septuagint (LXX.)

But as to the faithfulness of the Torah itself there is no question. As I have much personally testified, the indwelling Spirit authenticates Scripture and leads us into Truth. (John 14, 15):

God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. – John 4:24

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

For a good summary of the antiquity of the Torah manuscripts, from IBSS :

The basic Hebrew text is called the Masoretic Text (MT), which is named after a group of scribes in the ninth century that preserved the text and added vowels and punctuation marks. The original Hebrew just had consonants, but a few consonants functioned as vowels. No one would know how to pronounce the Hebrew words unless vowels marks were added. This is a great help in understanding the text. (Hebrew Bible)

There were three different tasks of copying the OT. The Sopherim wrote the consonantal text. The Nakdanim added the vowel points and accents. The Masoretes added the marginal notes. An example is the Kethib (what is written) and Qere (what should be read). There are over 1,300 of these. The vowels of the Qere were written in the text of the Kethib. There are three different systems of vowel pointing, the Babylonian, Palestinian and Tiberian which the Masoretes created. The marginal notes called Masora were mainly written in Aramaic and were like a concordance.

Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls the Nash Papyrus was the oldest known witness to the OT which dated to the first or second century AD. It contained the decalogue. The second oldest were the Cairo Geniza fragments (about 200,000) which date to the fifth century AD (See Princeton Geniza Project). Most of these are in the Cambridge University Library and the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Today the oldest known text of the OT was discovered in 1979 in tombs across the Hinnom valley from Jerusalem. The text is the benediction of Aaron (Numbers 6:24-26) written on a silver amulet from the 7th century BC (Hoerth 1998, 386).

The oldest surviving manuscript of the complete Bible is the Codex Leningradensis which dates to 1008 AD. A Facsimile edition of this great codex is now available (Leningrad Codex 1998, Eerdmans for $225). The BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) follows this codex. The most comprehensive collection of old Hebrew manuscripts is in the Russian Public Library in St. Petersburg formerly called Leningrad. Another important text is the Aleppo Codex which is now in Jerusalem. The HUB (Hebrew University Bible) follows the Aleppo Codex. The Isaiah and Jeremiah editions are now available. For a more detailed study see The Text of the Old Testament by Ernst Wurthwein and Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible by P. Kyle McCarter, Jr.

The Nash Papyrus dating has been pushed back to approximately 200 BC (Hebrew manuscript collection - University of Cambridge Cambridge University Library) Like the DSS, it contains fragments of Deuteronomy, but not the one we are seeking here.

Nevertheless, the Jews always understood their responsibility to keep the Torah:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. – Deu 4:2

Other resources for Lurkers:

The Hebrew Alphabet wrt the history of the signs and the care in forming letters in Holy Scriptures.

Ancient Hebrew Translation Project - wrt the translation of poetic form v mechanical v literal

I have also been researching the pseudepigraphra to see what extra-Biblical ancient manuscripts might have to add to the discussion. So far I have found two which may be interesting:

1 Enoch 96:2 refers to the righteous rising into the cleft of the rock. Fragments of this book were found at Qumran and carbon date to about 200 BC. The scholars suggest these passages were added though in about 100 B.C. The scholars believe the original language was Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

Testament of Moses which is supposed to be a summary of Deutoronomy, but is very fragmented and the parts which would address the name, the Rock, may be missing. The scholars dispute the age of the manuscript but put it somewhere between 168 BC and 135 AD. The bearing it may have (if any) to this discussion is that Moses instructs and assures Joshua to protect the Scriptures (last part of chapter 1) in a manner that suggests there will be another find like the Dead Sea Scrolls as we get closer the Christ’s coming:

… I am going to sleep with my fathers. But (you) take this writing so that later you will remember how to preserve the books which I shall entrust to you. You shall arrange them, anoint them with cedar, and deposit them in earthenware jars in the place which (God) has chosen from the beginning of the creation of the world, (a place) where his name may be called upon until the day of recompense when the Lord will surely have regard for his people.



TOPICS: Ecumenism; General Discusssion; Theology
KEYWORDS: peter; protestant
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-246 next last
To: OLD REGGIE
Thank you so much for that excerpt from the Catholic teaching!

You might also find Pope Benedict's confession on the matter revealing as excerpted on post 43.

There appears to be no confusion about the identity of The ROck in the highest authorities of the Roman Catholic Church.

To whatever extent there is a confusion as to "Who is The Rock?" - it must be among the laity.

201 posted on 01/31/2007 12:50:27 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
To whatever extent there is a confusion as to "Who is The Rock?" - it must be among the laity.

I believe you are correct. I don't know when and if the "official" teaching changed but I still remember (Oh lordy, 65 years ago) as a Catholic youth that Peter was the Rock of the Church.

Actually, this is still taught.

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

You can see there are different, very fine, distinctions between "rock" and "rock". It is very easy to see the confusion among the laity and the clergy for that matter.

A cynic might say "There is no teaching of the RCC which is so clear that it cannot be denied or reinterpreted as necessary."

202 posted on 01/31/2007 1:13:15 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Well, as far as the "Name of God" goes, God has many names, "Rock" being just one. I see no reason to give special attention to the term "rock". When we pray "in God's name", we cannot possibly use any one "name" over the other, so it's not very important that God was called "the Rock" other than to demonstrate, as you did, His steadfastness. IOW, that name merely demonstrates a character of God, an important character don't get me wrong, but again, just one aspect of Him. God is also called "the Savior" (in Isa) and "I AM" (in Ex), which provide us other examples of "names for God". The point is of course that all the Names of God point to an aspect of His Nature, so to expect something different from "the Rock" is illogical.

At any rate, I do believe according to Jewish tradition we humans can never fully "know" His name, by "know" I mean be able to write it down, pronounce it correctly, etc, so such discussions become largely academic, and not necessary for the Christian walk, per se. Just to put it in perspective.

I suppose that it may be an interesting point of historical curiousity that in Deut 32 the term "rock" was ommitted in earlier texts, but, it still remains that today the term is not ommitted, even from Catholic bibles. Also, worth noting, generally speaking, there are plenty of examples where certain words or phrases are clearly different from one translation/version to another; this is why KJV-onlyism, (or any Bible-onlyism) is a dangerous form of scholarship. Only by comparing translations/versions, and seeing which is the most common for any particular passage, can we, the casual reader get any idea at all which is the correct one, for any particular passage. And even this general rule of thumb isn't always right, as sometimes, the one unusual passage is the one that's translated correctly.

In this case the term "rock" does appear to have been ommitted incorrectly, but again, it's a mere point of curiousity, nothing more, IMHO, since even Catholic bibles have the term today.

203 posted on 01/31/2007 1:13:52 PM PST by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

quite so, Doc E.

= = = =

On the other hand, you have different fingers . . .

- - -

But, Dr E, who needs Holy Spirit? We have Papa Pope; and all the pontificating Cardinals and bishops . . . and we have all our lovely fantasies about Mother Mary; and all the beads and statues and all the Magesterical's encyclicals . . . and all the rituals and blather . . . all to keep us comfortable . . . or is it conformed . . . maybe I'm getting my beads mixed up . . .

/satire


204 posted on 01/31/2007 1:14:59 PM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE & HIS ENEMIES BE 100% DONE-IN; & ISLAM & TRAITORS FLUSHED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, but

Angel-Gal . . . you should know

[in the best Tevya imitation]

!!!TRADITION!!! TRUMPS TRUTH ANY DAY! Just ask em . . . though when put that way, they'll deny it . . . most other ways, too many demonstrate it.

We do well to try and speak the truth in love to such deadly error.


205 posted on 01/31/2007 1:17:18 PM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE & HIS ENEMIES BE 100% DONE-IN; & ISLAM & TRAITORS FLUSHED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Quix
or is it conformed

lol. Exactly.

206 posted on 01/31/2007 1:17:50 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
You can see there are different, very fine, distinctions between "rock" and "rock". It is very easy to see the confusion among the laity and the clergy for that matter.

Indeed. And if it were not for the fact that The Rock is a Name of God, it would not bother me that the term was used as a metaphor.

But it is not just a metaphor, it is a Name of God.

When Jesus said "before Abraham was, I AM" it was very clear that is His Name, i.e. that He is God.

207 posted on 01/31/2007 1:25:43 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Indeed. And if it were not for the fact that The Rock is a Name of God, it would not bother me that the term was used as a metaphor.
But it is not just a metaphor, it is a Name of God.

When Jesus said "before Abraham was, I AM" it was very clear that is His Name, i.e. that He is God.

= = = =

I wholesale agree.

But, it is not, really against the folks who believe differently, that I so stridently pontificate about such things.

It is against the damage to their souls and spiritual lives that such errors foster. I trust they pontificate on their side for similar reasons--at least I hope so.

Again, we MUST be sensitive and obedient to the two witnesses:

THE WORD
and
HOLY SPIRIT.

Naught else is sufficiently reliable for our trust.

NOTHING else.
NO ONE else.

No structure, no tradition, no chain of command, no sequence of signed logbooks, . . . .

NOTHING.

NOT Papal pontificators; Not all the Cardinals from whenever to now; Not all the bishops and all the cardinals; not all the equal in the Protesty camps; not all the scholars . . . NOT ALL OF THEM COMBINED;

Not Mary; nor Jesus' brothers in the flesh; Not even the Apostles, per se.

NO ONE.

GOD ALONE
HIS WORD ALONE


208 posted on 01/31/2007 1:32:09 PM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE & HIS ENEMIES BE 100% DONE-IN; & ISLAM & TRAITORS FLUSHED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven
Thank you for sharing your views!

I see no reason to give special attention to the term "rock".

Here we have an utterly irreconcilable difference between us, because I - like the Jews - look upon every Name of God as sacred.

And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God. - Deu 12:3-4

For me, whenever I hear questions such as below, I expect the same answer from all the members of the body of Christ:

Who is I AM?

Who is The Lord?

Who is YHWH?

Who is HaShem?

Who is El Shaddai?

Who is Immanuel?

Who is Adonai?

Who is the Lily of the Valley?

Who is the Rose of Sharon?

Who is Alpha and Omega?

Who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords?

Who is The Word?

Who is the Holy Ghost?

Who is Jesus Christ?

Who is The Rock?

It is more than important to me that none of the Names of God be diminished by anything including translation, doctrine or tradition.

209 posted on 01/31/2007 1:46:11 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Thank you so much for your testimony and encouragements!

And truly, you and I, and a great many like us here on this forum lean only on the Holy Spirit and the Word of God for Truth and we are filled with joy and blessed assurance.

But there are some who are more comfortable, for whatever reason, at certain times of their lives - and perhaps their entire lives - leaning on their trusted spiritual leaders.

Let us rejoice that they have that - and pray for those spiritual leaders and for them, trusting God to work everything together for the good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

210 posted on 01/31/2007 1:53:37 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

You have a valid point as God reveals Himself to mankind in a series of revelations, each one leading to the whole. To leave one out would leave the revelation incomplete.


211 posted on 01/31/2007 2:02:26 PM PST by 1000 silverlings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

TRUE, TRUE.

Your Spirit wisdom strikes home again.

Thx.


212 posted on 01/31/2007 2:23:47 PM PST by Quix (LET GOD ARISE & HIS ENEMIES BE 100% DONE-IN; & ISLAM & TRAITORS FLUSHED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Claud

Nor does mine. Which is why I try to back up what I am saying with Scripture. Some Scripture portions are hard do deal with. But, you deal with them nevertheless because it is what Scripture says. The idea of a virgin birth, for example, is something some people have a hard time with. I don't. I accept it by faith with no difficulty in the least because the Scripture testifies of such and the evidence is that in spite of efforts to try no real credible evidence exists to suggest something else. In other areas, such as the one we are dealing with, we should draw our conclusion from Scripture. If there is a difference of interpretation, I differ to the on non-essentials liberty saying. I believe the primacy of Peter to be false, but I don't lose sleep over it and recognize that others believe differently.


213 posted on 01/31/2007 7:22:34 PM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
Indeed. Thank you so much for your encouragements!
214 posted on 01/31/2007 8:52:07 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Thank YOU for your encouragements and insights!
215 posted on 01/31/2007 8:53:46 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Blogger
I believe the primacy of Peter to be false, but I don't lose sleep over it and recognize that others believe differently.

Well, that's a refreshing and honest attitude, and God bless you for it.

216 posted on 02/01/2007 5:24:16 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Quix
God's solution to the vain-glorious self-glorifications inherent in hierarchical structures and pontifical titles and positions.

I should make myself 100% clear. ANY kind of vainglorious, self-glorification connected with Church heirarchy is odious, disgusting, and completely foreign to the Church of God. The absolute WORST heirarchs are those who are concerned about the trappings of the office, and not the teaching of the faith and serving of the people.

So I agree with you there.

But you don't seem to have room in your interpretation for a righteous and Godly man who nevertheless occupies an office of authority. Am I wrong?

217 posted on 02/01/2007 5:31:04 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I have no leaning in the Spirit either way on that point but strongly on the point that God is the Rock (Deu 32:1-4) - and Peter is more like Abraham in the construction of the body of believers, both Christian and Jew. Which is to say, first rocks in their confessions - and both called by Almighty God.

Indeed! That's a great way to put it: "cornerstone" rocks in the true "Rock" which is God.

I regret that your comments on the "specially-announced Name of God--the Rock" got kinda lost in the shuffle here. I'll go back and read your posts on that.

218 posted on 02/01/2007 5:34:36 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
I imagine it's also possible that Jesus took the "Rockyness" away from Peter the last time, recorded in Scripture, He spoke to him.

Possible, but there's no evidence of that in Scripture. But since you bring up the end of John, where Christ says to Peter "feed my lambs, tend my sheep", it's interesting there that Christ is delegating his "Good Shepherdness" to Peter. Not that Peter becomes the Good Shepherd *in place* of Christ--that would be abject heresy and nonsense. But Christ makes Peter a guardian and shepherd of His flock in his stead.

Which reflects exactly what we are talking about in Matt 16.

219 posted on 02/01/2007 5:40:48 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Quix
But, Dr E, who needs Holy Spirit? We have Papa Pope; and all the pontificating Cardinals and bishops

Quix, let me say categorically that you are arguing against a straw man. Here are three positions vis a vis the Pope:

1) Holy Spirit does not head the Church, just the Pope. (what you just said)

2) Holy Spirit heads the Church through the Pope. (Catholic position)

3) Holy Spirit heads the Church without the Pope. (your position)

Nobody believes #1, because it's totally idiotic. If anyone does believe that, they need to be smacked.

Don't misrepresent our position to score rhetorical points.

220 posted on 02/01/2007 5:49:10 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240241-246 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson